Justia U.S. D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Eric Flannery owns and operates The Big Board, a bar and restaurant in Washington, D.C. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the District imposed masking and proof-of-vaccination requirements for restaurants and bars. Flannery publicly criticized these policies, and The Big Board refused to comply. After the mandates were lifted, Advisory Neighborhood Commission 6C (ANC 6C) formally opposed renewal of The Big Board’s liquor license, citing concerns such as impact on property values and public safety. Flannery and The Big Board attempted to resolve the protest but received little cooperation. Investigators found no evidence supporting ANC 6C’s stated concerns. Ultimately, ANC 6C withdrew its protest after an unproductive mediation session.Flannery and The Big Board sued ANC 6C commissioners in their personal capacities under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging First Amendment retaliation for Flannery's public criticism and the restaurant's noncompliance. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the complaint, holding that The Big Board’s refusal to comply with the mandates was not expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment and that the complaint failed to plausibly allege a causal link between Flannery’s protected speech and ANC 6C’s protest.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the appeal de novo. The court agreed with the district court that The Big Board’s noncompliance was not inherently expressive conduct under the First Amendment. However, it found that the complaint plausibly alleged that Flannery’s public criticism—protected speech—was a but-for cause of ANC 6C’s protest, based on statements by a commissioner and lack of evidence supporting the protest’s grounds. The court reversed the district court’s dismissal and remanded for further proceedings. View "Flannery v. Eckenwiler" on Justia Law

In 2022, Soohyung Kim and his company, through an affiliate, secured a winning bid to purchase TEGNA, a large broadcast television company. The transaction required regulatory approval from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) within 450 days, as specified in the merger agreement. The proposal drew objections from several organizations and individuals, including labor unions, public interest groups, and a rival bidder. Amid ongoing objections and extended public comment periods, the FCC’s Media Bureau ultimately failed to approve the license transfer within the required timeframe, resulting in the expiration of the merger agreement and obligating Kim’s group to pay significant break-up fees.After the collapse of the merger, the appellants filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against both the FCC and various private parties. They alleged constitutional and statutory violations, including Equal Protection claims, Communications Act violations, federal civil rights and conspiracy claims, and D.C.-law tort claims, asserting that the FCC and private parties conspired to prevent the merger based on race. The District Court dismissed all claims. Regarding the FCC, the court found the appellants lacked standing for prospective relief, as they failed to allege a substantial risk of future injury. The court also dismissed the Communications Act claims for lack of jurisdiction. As to the claims against private parties, the court applied Noerr-Pennington immunity and found no plausible basis for the civil rights or tort claims.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the District Court’s dismissal. The court held that the appellants lacked standing against the FCC due to insufficient allegations of likely future injury. The court further held that the claims against private appellees failed because the complaint did not plausibly allege intentional race discrimination or actionable tortious interference, and thus did not state a claim upon which relief could be granted. View "SGCI Holdings III LLC v. FCC" on Justia Law

In August 2021, a teacher was indefinitely suspended from his position within the District of Columbia Public Schools, allegedly without prior notice or an opportunity to be heard. The teacher subsequently filed a pro se lawsuit in federal court against the Mayor of the District of Columbia and two public school officials. He claimed a violation of his procedural due process rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and asserted separate claims under District of Columbia law.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the teacher’s section 1983 claim, reasoning that he failed to exhaust administrative remedies available under the District’s Comprehensive Merit Personnel Act (CMPA). Since the federal claim was dismissed, the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the local law claims and dismissed them as well.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The appellate court held that, under Supreme Court precedent—especially Patsy v. Board of Regents of Florida—and its own prior decisions, exhaustion of state or District of Columbia administrative remedies is not a prerequisite to bringing a section 1983 claim in federal court, unless Congress expressly imposes such a requirement. The court found that neither the CMPA nor any federal statute required exhaustion in this context. Thus, the court reversed the district court’s dismissal of the section 1983 claim and vacated the dismissal of the local law claims, remanding the case for further proceedings. The appellate court emphasized that only Congress, not local law or judicial interpretation, may impose exhaustion requirements for section 1983 actions in federal court. View "Mpoy v. Burst" on Justia Law

A man was detained by Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Police officers after a bystander called 9-1-1, reporting what she believed could be a kidnapping or child abuse involving the man and his young daughter. Officers located the man based on his vehicle’s license plate and found him outside his home. When the man attempted to enter his house contrary to police orders, officers restrained and handcuffed him. They questioned both the man and his family members, including the child, and, after determining no crime had occurred, released him after approximately twenty-five minutes.The man subsequently filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging that the officers unlawfully prolonged his detention after any reasonable suspicion had dissipated, thus violating his Fourth Amendment rights, and also claimed false imprisonment under D.C. law. The district court dismissed most claims but allowed the prolonged-detention and unlawful-arrest claims to proceed. It granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiff against one officer and denied qualified immunity to the officers, reasoning that suspicion of kidnapping had dissipated once police learned of the familial relationship.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the denial of qualified immunity. The court held that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because no clearly established law required them to end the detention before they spoke with the child, given the ongoing suspicion of a child-abuse-related offense. The court also found that the plaintiff had forfeited his unlawful-arrest claim by not briefing it on appeal. The court reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment against Officer Todaro and remanded for entry of summary judgment for the officers on the Fourth Amendment claims, declining to exercise jurisdiction over the state-law false-imprisonment claim. View "Fishman v. DC" on Justia Law

Thirteen individuals and three nonprofit organizations challenged executive actions taken after the issuance of a presidential proclamation in January 2025, which responded to increased crossings at the southern border by suspending the entry of certain noncitizens and instituting new summary removal procedures. These new procedures, set out in subsequent agency guidance, barred individuals who crossed between ports of entry—or at ports without proper documentation—from seeking asylum or other statutory protections. The policies also established new, non-statutory removal processes that bypassed existing procedures and protections mandated by federal law.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia reviewed these policies in a putative class action. The court certified a class of all individuals subject to the proclamation, declared the agency guidance unlawful, vacated it, and enjoined agency officials from implementing similar actions under the proclamation. The district court found that the challenged policies supplanted the removal procedures and substantive protections Congress had established in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and related regulations, including the right to apply for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment for the plaintiffs and affirmed the modified class certification. The D.C. Circuit held that Congress, in granting the President authority to suspend entry under the INA, did not authorize the executive to circumvent or override the statute’s exclusive and mandatory removal procedures or to categorically deny the right to apply for asylum and other protections. The court further held that neither the proclamation nor its guidance could lawfully suspend or replace statutory and regulatory processes for removal or for considering claims to asylum, withholding of removal, or Convention Against Torture protection. The court also upheld the district court’s class-wide relief and its scope under federal law. View "Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services v. Mullin" on Justia Law

Eighteen transgender women incarcerated in federal women’s prisons challenged a federal executive order that directed the Attorney General to ensure that “males”—defined by biological sex assigned at conception—are not detained in women’s facilities. These plaintiffs were a small group of transgender women whom the Bureau of Prisons had, after individualized assessments, placed in women’s facilities. Each had been diagnosed with gender dysphoria, received long-term hormone therapy, and some had undergone gender-affirming surgeries. The plaintiffs alleged that transferring them to men’s prisons would expose them to grave risks of violence, abuse, and psychological harm.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted the plaintiffs preliminary injunctive relief, blocking their transfers and requiring the government to maintain their housing in women’s facilities. The district court found that transgender women are at a significantly higher risk of harm in men’s facilities and that the government was aware of these risks. The court also rejected government arguments that judicial review was barred or that the plaintiffs had failed to exhaust administrative remedies, holding instead that no effective administrative remedy was available.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The appellate court held that judicial review of constitutional claims was not barred by statute and that the government had not shown exhaustion of available administrative remedies. However, the court vacated the preliminary injunctions, finding that the district court’s broad, categorical reasoning was not defended by the plaintiffs on appeal, who instead advanced more individualized grounds. The record did not contain the necessary factual findings as to each plaintiff’s specific vulnerabilities. The case was remanded for further proceedings, and the expired injunctions were dismissed as moot. View "Doe v. Blanche" on Justia Law

A police officer with the Metropolitan Police Department in Washington, D.C., was involved in two separate incidents within five days, during which he used neck restraints—specifically, trachea and carotid artery holds—on two individuals while on duty. Both incidents occurred at McDonald’s restaurants, and in each case, the officer initiated physical contact and applied prohibited neck restraints, despite the individuals not posing an immediate threat or actively resisting arrest. The officer was aware that such holds were forbidden by department policy, and in one instance, had been warned about his conduct just days before repeating it.A grand jury indicted the officer on five charges related to these events. Before trial, three charges were dropped. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia conducted a jury trial, after which the officer was convicted on two counts of depriving individuals of their rights under color of law, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242. The jury found that the officer acted willfully, used excessive force, and caused bodily injury. The court sentenced him to concurrent six-month prison terms and supervised release. The officer moved for acquittal and a new trial, arguing, among other things, that the jury instructions on willfulness were improper and that the evidence was insufficient. The District Court denied these motions.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the officer’s challenges. The court held that the jury instructions on willfulness were not plainly erroneous, as precedent allows conviction under § 242 for conduct done in reckless disregard of constitutional rights. The court also found sufficient evidence supported the jury’s findings of excessive force and willfulness, and that no impermissible amendment or variance of the indictment occurred. The appellate court affirmed the District Court’s evidentiary rulings and the officer’s convictions. View "USA v. Clark" on Justia Law

A high school student in the District of Columbia was sexually assaulted by a classmate in a school bathroom. The student’s mother reported the incident to school officials, prompting an investigation by the District. The District ultimately found the assault claim credible and took steps to support the student, including offering counseling and a school transfer. However, the school principal, before any investigation, expressed disbelief in the student’s claim, made derogatory remarks about her, and attempted to undermine the investigation, even after video evidence corroborated the student’s account. The principal’s conduct included misleading superiors and withholding information. The student and her mother later learned of these actions, which caused them significant distress.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the student’s claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) for failure to state a claim, finding that the school-student relationship alone did not create a special duty under D.C. law. After discovery, the court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) and Title IX claims, holding that the District’s response was not deliberately indifferent and that the principal’s conduct did not meet the standard for IIED because the remarks were made outside the student’s presence.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the NIED claim and the grant of summary judgment to the District on the Title IX claims, finding the District’s overall response was not clearly unreasonable and that the principal’s actions could not be attributed to the District for Title IX retaliation. However, the appellate court reversed the grant of summary judgment on the IIED claim against the principal, holding that a reasonable jury could find her conduct was extreme and outrageous, intended or recklessly caused severe emotional distress, and remanded for further proceedings on that claim. View "Doe v. DC" on Justia Law

A former federal employee alleged that her union mishandled an arbitration proceeding and discriminated against her based on sex and disability. She claimed that the union’s local president made unwanted sexual advances, disparaged her status as a nursing mother, and ultimately withdrew union support for her grievance against her employer. The employee filed several unfair labor practice (ULP) charges with the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA), some of which were dismissed as untimely, and also filed a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which issued her a right-to-sue letter. She then brought two lawsuits in federal district court: one alleging violations of Title VII and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) against the union and its local, and another, pro se, alleging retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) against the union, its local, and two union officials.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed both lawsuits for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court reasoned that the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (FSLMRS) precluded the employee’s claims, holding that her allegations were essentially claims for breach of the union’s duty of fair representation, which must be pursued exclusively through the FLRA’s administrative process.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the dismissals de novo. The court held that the FSLMRS does not preclude federal employees from bringing Title VII and ADA claims against their unions in federal district court, even when the alleged conduct could also constitute a ULP. The court reasoned that Congress did not intend to displace these specific statutory discrimination remedies with the FSLMRS’s more limited scheme. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of the FLSA retaliation claim, finding no indication that Congress intended for such claims against unions to proceed in district court alongside the FSLMRS process. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the Title VII and ADA claims. View "Lucas v. American Federation of Government Employees" on Justia Law

Michael Hurd, Jr. was sentenced in 2005 to 15 months in prison for a felony firearm charge and an additional 27 months for four misdemeanor firearm and drug possession charges. After serving his felony sentence in federal custody, Hurd was mistakenly released instead of being transferred to serve his misdemeanor sentence. He completed his supervised release and, years later, was reincarcerated by the District of Columbia Department of Corrections when the error was discovered during a subsequent, unrelated incarceration. Hurd was not given a hearing before being required to serve the remainder of his original sentence.After his reincarceration, Hurd filed a habeas petition in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, which was denied. His appeal was dismissed as moot after he completed his sentence. Hurd then brought a civil action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his substantive and procedural due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. The district court granted summary judgment to the District, finding no substantive due process violation and holding that his procedural due process claim was barred by the Supreme Court’s decision in Heck v. Humphrey.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that reincarcerating a person to serve the remainder of a lawfully imposed sentence after an erroneous release does not violate substantive due process, as such action does not “shock the conscience.” The court also held that Hurd’s procedural due process claim for damages was barred by Heck v. Humphrey because a judgment in his favor would necessarily imply the invalidity of his confinement, which had not been set aside. View "Hurd v. DC" on Justia Law